Combat is SR6?

I debated closing this thread for a bit, since the arguments are all circular and keep coming back to "I like/dislike the changes". But, there are some questions and nuggets of info here that are useful, if we can all keep our opinions and feelings to a minimum.

And then let's talk about the tactical impacts of those probabilities... If I am a mage running with a bunch of melee-focused street samurai is it possible for me give them cover while they close with a bunch of CorpSec with guns? I create smoke or darkness... If my side tries to shoot everyone has the same problem so nobody gets edge but if my side tries to close they have edge (but still get shot by big dice pools, see above)? Why can't I make a tactical choice to shut down ranged combat?

I feel like I must be missing something here in your example.

What is it that's preventing the mage from creating a scenario where the street samurai can close the gap while taking relatively little fire? If the mage creates an area of darkness surrounding the corporate goons, enabling their buddies to get into position while corpsec fumbles around blind, then clearly they're not an equal footing. The runners would gain Edge as they combat roll past the hail of blindfire, and could spend that Edge to mitigate any damage they'd be taking. Once the katana crew is in position the mage drops the darkness, and then violence commences.

I mean, mostly, as someone who isn't even that enthusiastic for 5th or 6th edition. I just find the realism arguments kind of a weird way to replace "I don't like the direction of new rules" in people's semantics.

There is no realistic ballistic model for a troll getting shot.

Because neither the troll, nor the gun I am shooting him with, are realistic objects.

So to argue a given rules change is bad because unrealistic is a nonsense notion. Shadowrun is a game of rules that construct a reality through establishing exactly how tough a troll is and how much damage the fictional firearm hitting his chest can do.

That these change from edition to edition definitely changes the tone but does not make a given edition more or less realistic. It just creates another set of expectations for what's 'real' in a very camp, silly setting.

Also I'm looking forwards to the leeway the 5 edge spend 'declare something plausible but lucky that happens' gives to actually liven combat up past "take the obvious best position and then shoot a bunch," for all people talk about the deep tactics being lost by crunching boring but predictable modifiers has on the system.

if only the playtesting had involved people with a strong enough knowledge of game mechanics to challenge the designers

this could not be farther from the truth if you tried

Be that as it may, there are still a number of us looking at this and wondering how to make specific types of things matter. My post gave a number of examples of essentially defensive play which seem to have been thrown out the window in the name of streamlining. Refuting this one comment but saying nothing about the post that gave rise to the comment is not reassuring.

Does the system provide a mechanic for doing any of the things I suggested? Getting the opponent to use up ammo on poor shots? Defending myself from multiple attackers with effects I don't want to get hit by? Shutting down ranged combat to enable my team to close? Are *any* of these possible within the mechanics or am I reliant on a GM house-ruling a situation "reasonably" so that everyone is having fun? In my gaming group I can count on that GM but I am blessed to be in a group with 150+ years of GMing experience at the table every Friday night. I can't normally get that at a con event or in any random group and I am hoping that tactical play is not reliant on it.

(Heck, even if this kind of stuff is still behind an NDA, a statement that it has not all been swept away into the edge system, especially one that is limited to two edge per combat round, would be helpful.)

since this is unlocked now ... yes there are still many tactical options you can take to give yourself or your team the advantage ... MOSt of them but not all of them just boil down to your side being able to lock down one of the three potential options for edge gain during combat. There is no need to house rule anything, but it does require being able to explain or clearly show that what your doing does provide a tactical advantage. This may be a problem at some tables depending on experience and GM/play style, but I expect it should not be an issue for most.

Counterpoint: bears. And no, I'd the gun you're firing at him with is a realistic object, unless you're firing at him with a laser weapon or something.

So, to be clear, the gun I am firing at a fictional troll which is made by a fictional manufacturer in an alternate timeline for earth were like a third of the population died due to a magical plague and also magic is real is a real object?

Well I put forward the best arguments I could think of on this. No one seems like they are going to change positions. Folks point of view are seem Hardened at this point. I look forward to continue in whatever the next thread is. Welcome to all our new posters. I hope you enjoy the forums.

And then let's talk about the tactical impacts of those probabilities... If I am a mage running with a bunch of melee-focused street samurai is it possible for me give them cover while they close with a bunch of CorpSec with guns? I create smoke or darkness... If my side tries to shoot everyone has the same problem so nobody gets edge but if my side tries to close they have edge (but still get shot by big dice pools, see above)? Why can't I make a tactical choice to shut down ranged combat?

I feel like I must be missing something here in your example.

What is it that's preventing the mage from creating a scenario where the street samurai can close the gap while taking relatively little fire? If the mage creates an area of darkness surrounding the corporate goons, enabling their buddies to get into position while corpsec fumbles around blind, then clearly they're not an equal footing. The runners would gain Edge as they combat roll past the hail of blindfire, and could spend that Edge to mitigate any damage they'd be taking. Once the katana crew is in position the mage drops the darkness, and then violence commences.

Right?

Mage and Decker are busted while sneaking into a warehouse. Decker is fast, Corp guard is next fast, Mage is slow. Nobody has thermo or low light, mage has Astral vision.

I see a lot of 'well what about scenario X' questions but many of them weren't supported before to begin with or sound like extremely unlikely scenarios to begin with. And given how people stated that they managed to make SR5 playable with houserules, I don't see the point in acting as if needing houserules for special tables is a bad thing.

When did you ever make your enemies run out of ammo in SR5 to begin with, rather than taking them down too fast for even a single reload? Why is having multiple enemies something we care about when their hits/turn reduced in the new mook group system vs old reducing defense pool system? And why are we claiming the Playtesters were idiots?

Logged

CorpSec when an alarm is triggered;: "This is so sad, Alexa play Shoot The Runner"

And then let's talk about the tactical impacts of those probabilities... If I am a mage running with a bunch of melee-focused street samurai is it possible for me give them cover while they close with a bunch of CorpSec with guns? I create smoke or darkness... If my side tries to shoot everyone has the same problem so nobody gets edge but if my side tries to close they have edge (but still get shot by big dice pools, see above)? Why can't I make a tactical choice to shut down ranged combat?

I feel like I must be missing something here in your example.

What is it that's preventing the mage from creating a scenario where the street samurai can close the gap while taking relatively little fire? If the mage creates an area of darkness surrounding the corporate goons, enabling their buddies to get into position while corpsec fumbles around blind, then clearly they're not an equal footing. The runners would gain Edge as they combat roll past the hail of blindfire, and could spend that Edge to mitigate any damage they'd be taking. Once the katana crew is in position the mage drops the darkness, and then violence commences.

Right?

Mage and Decker are busted while sneaking into a warehouse. Decker is fast, Corp guard is next fast, Mage is slow. Nobody has thermo or low light, mage has Astral vision.

6th edition, Decker kills lights, corp guard shoots at Mage and mage gets a point of Edge but otherwise needs to dodge or soak the incoming damage normally. If the Mage lives, Mage zots guard.

I mean, edge can literally enable "actually rather than just going out the lights explode when the decker touches them in the matrix because they're old pieces of shit and stuns the guards for a turn" as an option.

Which, both more stylish and requires less rolls of all the guards with hell modifiers failing to hit.

Edge is a wonky system but it's very weird to discredit something that can cause spouts of good luck to spring in your favour as "just one edge". It definitely can have impacts.

So, to be clear, the gun I am firing at a fictional troll which is made by a fictional manufacturer in an alternate timeline for earth were like a third of the population died due to a magical plague and also magic is real is a real object?

A troll is just a creature and flesh, a bullet is just a bullet.

Quote

What is the performance of this real gun?

How am I supposed to answer that if you won't tell me which gun? Ah, but it doesn't matter, whatever you say I'll just point you to a comparable real gun.

So, to be clear, the gun I am firing at a fictional troll which is made by a fictional manufacturer in an alternate timeline for earth were like a third of the population died due to a magical plague and also magic is real is a real object?

A troll is just a creature and flesh, a bullet is just a bullet.

Quote

What is the performance of this real gun?

How am I supposed to answer that if you won't tell me which gun? Ah, but it doesn't matter, whatever you say I'll just point you to a comparable real gun.

I feel like you're very much yelling at trees in a forest: It does not matter which gun or which fictional creature you are firing at. The point is that Shadowrun is a thing of quite often absurd fiction and to present mechanics changes as being cause to pearl clutch about realism is both hilarious and sad.

Heck, even 2020 (famed for it's firefight rules and only having humans) has two different equally popular versions for how to resolve damage. Which one is more real? The answer is that it depends on the tone and reality you want to set for your game.

I mean hey, with soak being less of a factor trolls are now more of an embodiment of the bullet proof terror than they were in previous editions. Arguably you could posit 6th edition as the most 'realistic' version of shooting a troll with a gun Shadowrun has ever done by the parameters of their own fiction.

Be that as it may, there are still a number of us looking at this and wondering how to make specific types of things matter. My post gave a number of examples of essentially defensive play which seem to have been thrown out the window in the name of streamlining. Refuting this one comment but saying nothing about the post that gave rise to the comment is not reassuring.

Does the system provide a mechanic for doing any of the things I suggested? Getting the opponent to use up ammo on poor shots? Defending myself from multiple attackers with effects I don't want to get hit by? Shutting down ranged combat to enable my team to close? Are *any* of these possible within the mechanics or am I reliant on a GM house-ruling a situation "reasonably" so that everyone is having fun? In my gaming group I can count on that GM but I am blessed to be in a group with 150+ years of GMing experience at the table every Friday night. I can't normally get that at a con event or in any random group and I am hoping that tactical play is not reliant on it.

(Heck, even if this kind of stuff is still behind an NDA, a statement that it has not all been swept away into the edge system, especially one that is limited to two edge per combat round, would be helpful.)

since this is unlocked now ... yes there are still many tactical options you can take to give yourself or your team the advantage ... MOSt of them but not all of them just boil down to your side being able to lock down one of the three potential options for edge gain during combat. There is no need to house rule anything, but it does require being able to explain or clearly show that what your doing does provide a tactical advantage. This may be a problem at some tables depending on experience and GM/play style, but I expect it should not be an issue for most.

@Banshee, I appreciate your taking time to address this and it is possible that we both agree here based on some other things you have said in this thread.

My concern is that statistically speaking 1 point of edge (if used immediately to reroll an opponent success) is a bit less than a 3-die penalty against a single attacker (or a group of Grunts). With the limitation on gaining edge I am concerned that large scale tactical activity (anything intended to cover 3 attacks or more) is essentially still impossible as long as it is being covered by the edge mechanic. That's not going to come up in every fight or anything but it does exemplify the kinds of fights that are the epic, memorable events in a campaign and so it is something that sticks out to me as an issue (and potentially one that could be solved or at least mitigated by going back to the 2-per-turn limit instead or the 2-per-round limit as discussed above).

And then let's talk about the tactical impacts of those probabilities... If I am a mage running with a bunch of melee-focused street samurai is it possible for me give them cover while they close with a bunch of CorpSec with guns? I create smoke or darkness... If my side tries to shoot everyone has the same problem so nobody gets edge but if my side tries to close they have edge (but still get shot by big dice pools, see above)? Why can't I make a tactical choice to shut down ranged combat?

I feel like I must be missing something here in your example.

What is it that's preventing the mage from creating a scenario where the street samurai can close the gap while taking relatively little fire? If the mage creates an area of darkness surrounding the corporate goons, enabling their buddies to get into position while corpsec fumbles around blind, then clearly they're not an equal footing. The runners would gain Edge as they combat roll past the hail of blindfire, and could spend that Edge to mitigate any damage they'd be taking. Once the katana crew is in position the mage drops the darkness, and then violence commences.

Right?

Mage and Decker are busted while sneaking into a warehouse. Decker is fast, Corp guard is next fast, Mage is slow. Nobody has thermo or low light, mage has Astral vision.

6th edition, Decker kills lights, corp guard shoots at Mage and mage gets a point of Edge but otherwise needs to dodge or soak the incoming damage normally. If the Mage lives, Mage zots guard.

I mean, edge can literally enable "actually rather than just going out the lights explode when the decker touches them in the matrix because they're old pieces of shit and stuns the guards for a turn" as an option.

Which, both more stylish and requires less rolls of all the guards with hell modifiers failing to hit.

Edge is a wonky system but it's very weird to discredit something that can cause spouts of good luck to spring in your favour as "just one edge". It definitely can have impacts.

That's simply the difference in the rules, it's not a qualitative statement. 5th edition total darkness would be a -7, 6th edition it's a point of Edge. If that's good or bad is a subjective judgement that folks need to make for themselves.

Be that as it may, there are still a number of us looking at this and wondering how to make specific types of things matter. My post gave a number of examples of essentially defensive play which seem to have been thrown out the window in the name of streamlining. Refuting this one comment but saying nothing about the post that gave rise to the comment is not reassuring.

Does the system provide a mechanic for doing any of the things I suggested? Getting the opponent to use up ammo on poor shots? Defending myself from multiple attackers with effects I don't want to get hit by? Shutting down ranged combat to enable my team to close? Are *any* of these possible within the mechanics or am I reliant on a GM house-ruling a situation "reasonably" so that everyone is having fun? In my gaming group I can count on that GM but I am blessed to be in a group with 150+ years of GMing experience at the table every Friday night. I can't normally get that at a con event or in any random group and I am hoping that tactical play is not reliant on it.

(Heck, even if this kind of stuff is still behind an NDA, a statement that it has not all been swept away into the edge system, especially one that is limited to two edge per combat round, would be helpful.)

since this is unlocked now ... yes there are still many tactical options you can take to give yourself or your team the advantage ... MOSt of them but not all of them just boil down to your side being able to lock down one of the three potential options for edge gain during combat. There is no need to house rule anything, but it does require being able to explain or clearly show that what your doing does provide a tactical advantage. This may be a problem at some tables depending on experience and GM/play style, but I expect it should not be an issue for most.

@Banshee, I appreciate your taking time to address this and it is possible that we both agree here based on some other things you have said in this thread.

My concern is that statistically speaking 1 point of edge (if used immediately to reroll an opponent success) is a bit less than a 3-die penalty against a single attacker (or a group of Grunts). With the limitation on gaining edge I am concerned that large scale tactical activity (anything intended to cover 3 attacks or more) is essentially still impossible as long as it is being covered by the edge mechanic. That's not going to come up in every fight or anything but it does exemplify the kinds of fights that are the epic, memorable events in a campaign and so it is something that sticks out to me as an issue (and potentially one that could be solved or at least mitigated by going back to the 2-per-turn limit instead or the 2-per-round limit as discussed above).

yes, the revised edge economy will at least seem to lessen the impact (and probably realistically do so as well) but considering the opposition is working within the same economy it still has the same overall balance, and still provide those cool epic moments. Plus one of the features that hasn't been addresses yet is the ability to give edge back and forth between allies as well ... so you could very well team up for one big pay off pretty quickly which can lead to some epic drama too.